REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

EN BANC

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1697

REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9072)
Petitioner,
Present:

DEL ROSARIO, P.J.,

CASTANEDA, JR.,
UY,
- versus - FABO N-VI CTO RI N0,
MINDARO-GRULLA,
RINGPIS-LIBAN, and
MANAHAN, JJ.

TRUSTMARK HOLDINGS
CORPORATION,
Respondent.

){-----------------------------
JAIII 3:;~·:'~~ ·
Promulgated:

DECISION

Fabon - Victorino, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review 1 filed by petitioner

Commissioner of Internal Revenue on August 24, 2017 are
the Decision 2 dated May 19, 2017 and the Resol ution 3 dated
July 21, 2017, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA
Case No. 9072 entitled Trustmark Holdings Corporation vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The dispositive portion
of the assailed Decision and Resolution read as follows:

Assailed Decision dated May 19, 2017:

/
WHEREFORE , premises considered,
the instant Petition for Review is hereby
1 En Bane docket, pp. 6-17 .
2 En Bane docket, pp. 21-50.
3 En Bane docket, pp. 51-54 .
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 2 of 13

GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent's

imposition of surcharge and interests
arising from the deficiency DST assessment
is DELETED. Consequently, respondent's
Formal Letter of Demand dated October 28,
2014 and Assessment Notice No. ELTAD-11-
DS-09-0019, essentially assessing
petitioner for surcharge and interests, are
CANCELLED.

SO ORDERED.

Assailed Resolution dated July 21, 2017:

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

respondent's Motion for Reconsideration
(RE: Decision dated May 19, 2017) is
DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner seeks to reverse and set aside the foregoing

adverse Decision and Resolution and for the Court En Bane
to direct respondent Trustmark Holdings Corporation to pay
the assessed deficiency interests and surcharge pursuant to
Sections 248 and 249 of the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) of 1997, as amended.

The following facts as established during the trial are

undisputed.

Petitioner is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with

the power to decide disputed assessments, cancel and abate
tax liabilities in accordance with the provisions of the NIRC
of 1997, as amended. He holds office at the 5th Floor, BIR
National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City.

Respondent, on the other hand, is a don1estic

corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) with SEC Reg. No. A200009678, whose
primary purpose is to be a holding corporation, without,
however, engaging as a stockbroker or as dealer of
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 3 of 13

securities. 4 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal

Revenue (BIR) with Taxpayer's Identification Number (TIN)
207-483-528-000. 5

In May 2010, respondent received from petitioner a

Letter of Authority (LOA-124-2010-00000086) 6 dated May
14, 2010, authorizing the examination of its books of
accounts and other accounting records for all internal
revenue taxes for the period covering January 1, 2009 to
December 31, 2009. The said tax examination was
continued by another revenue officer by virtue of a
Memorandum of Assignmene dated December 1, 2014.

Subsequently, respondent received a Notice of Informal

Conference 8 (NIC) dated October 19, 2011, requesting it to
appear for an informal conference within fifteen (15) days
from such receipt at the BIR National Office Building,
Diliman, Quezon City.

On November 25, 2011, respondent filed a letter9 with

petitioner, stating its willingness to pay the basic taxes due
upon receipt of the corresponding Preliminary Assessment
Notice (PAN) with reservation of its right to apply for an
abatement of the penalties pursuant to Section 204 (B) of
the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and its implementing
regulations.

On December 23, 2011, respondent received the PAN 10

with Details of Discrepancies dated December 1, 2011,
assessing it for deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax (DST),
computed as follows:

Transactions subject to DST:

Advances to Affiliates 5,391,387,600.00
Advances from Affiliates 28,760,767,675.00
Payable - Others 136,000,000.00
Notes Payable 20,936,804.00
Total Amount subject to DST 34,309,092,079.00

4 Exhibit P-1.
5 Exhibit P-2.
6 Exhibit P-4; Exhibit R-1.
7 Exhibit R-5.
8 Exhibit P-5; Exhibit R-7.
9 Exhibit P-7.
10 Exhibits P-6 and P-6-a; Exhibit R-9.
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 4 of 13

DST Due Thereon 171,545,463.00

Add: 25% Surcharge for failure to 42,886,365.75
file DST Return and pay
corresponding tax due
20% Interest p.a. until
December 31, 2 0 11 _1=-=5'--'0-L,7_6'--2_/_,4_4---'5'---.-'--67_ _=-=-19=:-3--'-'-=-64--=-8--':,::-::8=-11=-·-=-4=--2
Total Amount due 365,194,274.42

On December 28, 2011, petitioner paid the basic DST

due amounting to P171,545,463.00. 11

On April 18, 2012, respondent sent a letter 12 to

petitioner informing him of its payment of the basic DST
under the PAN with a request to waive the surcharge and
interest on the ground that the late payment of DST was due
to difficulty in the interpretation of the law.

On June 25, 2012, respondent filed an Application for

Abatement or Cancellation of Tax, Penalties and/or
Interest13 imposed amounting to P193,648,811.42 grounded
on "non-compliance due to difficult interpretation of the
law."

On October 28, 2014, respondent received the Formal

Letter of Demand 14 (FLO) dated October 28, 2014, with the
Details of Discrepancies and Assessment Notice No. ELTAD-
II-DS-09-0019, finding it liable for deficiency DST, computed
as follows:

Total Deficiency Tax Per PAN 365,194,274.42

Less: Amount Paid on Dec. 28, 2011 171,545,463.00
Deficiency DST 193,648,811.42
Add: Interest
20% p.a. (Dec. 28, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2014) 116,613,722.60
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 310,262,534.02

Respondent protested 15 the FLO on November 27, 2014.

On May 21, 2015, respondent received the Final

Decision on Disputed Assessment 16 (FDDA) dated March 31,

11
Exhibits P-8 to P-8-a.
12 Exhibit P-9.
13 Exhibit P-10.
14
Exhibits P-3 to P-3-c; Exhibits R-11 and R-11-a.
15 Exhibit P-11.
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 5 of 13

2015, denying its protest for failure to adduce evidence to

overthrow the validity of petitioner's findings.

On June 19, 2015, respondent elevated its case before

the Court in Division via a Petition for Review 17 •

In his Answer 18 filed on September 9, 2015, petitioner

mainly argued that the assessment issued was valid and
that respondent was liable to pay deficiency DST in the
amount of P310,262,534.02.

Trial ensued during which the parties presented their

respective documentary and testimonial evidence.

In the assailed Decision of May 19, 2017, the Court in

Division tilted the scale of justice in favor of respondent and
granted its Petition for Review on the ground that
respondent was in good faith in believing that intercompany
advances were not subject to DST prior to July 19, 2011
when the Supreme Court promulgated its decision in CIR vs.
Filinvest Development Corporation 19 (Filinvest case). The
Court in Division explained that a taxpayer could not be
faulted for relying in good faith on the rulings 20 of the BIR
and the Court of Tax Appeals/Court of Appeals issued prior
to Filinvest case that intercompany advances covered by
board resolution, office memo, instructional letter and/or
cash and journal vouchers or similar documents are not
subject to DST. Citing Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc. vs.
CIR, 21 the Court in Division ruled that good faith and
honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the
basis of previous interpretation of government
agencies tasked to implement the tax law, are
sufficient justification to delete the imposition of
surcharges and interest.

16 Exhibit P-12; Exhibit R-14.

17 Court in Division docket, pp. 10-33.
18 Court in Division docket, pp. 104-120.
1 9 G.R. Nos. 163653 and 167689.
20 BIR Ruling Nos. DA-696-06 dated December 11, 2006, DA-701-07 dated December 28,

2007, DA-016-08 dated January 17, 2008, and DA-(C-035) 127-08 dated August 8, 2008;
APC Group, Inc. vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 6155, March 11, 2002; CIR vs. APC Group, Inc., CA-
G.R. SP No. 69869 dated November 29, 2002; Filinvest Development Corporation and
Filinvest Alabang, Inc. vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 6182, September 10, 2002; CIR vs. Filinvest
Development Corporation and Filinvest Alabang, Inc., CA-G.R. No. SP No. 74510, January 26,
2005.
J
21 G.R. No. 166786, September 11, 2006.
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 6 of 13

Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration 22 of the

assailed Decision but the same was denied in the equally
assailed Resolution of July 21, 2017.

Hence, the instant Petition for Review filed on August

24, 2017, anchored on the sole ground that:

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN

CANCELLING THE FORMAL LEITER OF
DEMAND DATED OCTOBER 28, 2014 AND
ASSESSMENT NOTICE NO. ELTAD-11-DS-
09-0019, ASSESSING RESPONDENT FOR
SURCHARGE AND INTEREST ARISING FROM
DEFICIENCY DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX
(DST).

Petitioner contends that the Court in Division erred in

finding respondent not liable to pay the assessed surcharge
and interest because it relied in good faith on the BIR
Rulings cited in the assailed Decision since they were not
issued in its favor, invoking the principle enunciated in
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Filinvest Development
Corporation. 23

Petitioner points out that the imposition of surcharge

and interest was due to petitioner's failure to file and pay
the correct tax due on time. Petitioner opines that such kind
of imposition is not penal but compensatory in nature meant
to discourage delay in the payment of taxes due the
government.

In its Comment 24 , respondent avers that contrary to

petitioner's assertion, the assailed Decision and Resolution
were not only anchored on its reliance in good faith on the
cited BIR Rulings. It states that the Court in Division, in
cancelling the assessment on surcharge and interest issued
against it, elucidated on three significant points in support of
its ruling, to wit: (1) respondent not only relied in good faith
on BIR Rulings but also on court decisions pertaining to the
non-imposition of DST on intercompany advances; (2)

22 Court in Division docket, pp. 397-401.

23 G.R. Nos. 163653 and 167689, July 19, 2011.
24 En Bane docket, pp. 61-69.
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 7 of 13

petitioner's issuance of an invalid DST assessment which

included transactions not covered by the Letter of Authority
issued for taxable year 2009 only; and (3) the Supreme
Court decisions declaring that good faith and honest belief
are sufficient justification to delete the imposition of the
surcharges and interests arising from the deficiency DST
assessment issued against it.

In addition, the wide publication of the BIR Rulings,

although not directed to it, generated an impression that
other taxpayers similarly situated might rely on such Rulings
as it did. Thus, it should not be faulted for relying in good
on said BIR Rulings thus failed to pay the DST on
intercompany advances on the prescribed date of payment.

In closing, respondent submits that petitioner failed to

raise any issue not resolved by the Court in Division in the
assailed Decision and Resolution.

On January 28, 2018, respondent filed its Memorandum

in compliance with the Court's directive. Petitioner however
failed to file any per the Report of the Judicial Records
Division dated January 22, 2018. The instant Petition for
Review was submitted for decision on February 5, 2018. 25

The Court En Bane's Ruling

The instant Petition for Review must fail.

Indeed, petitioner merely mimics all its previous

arguments raised in its pleadings filed with the Court in
Division. There is nothing in his main pleading before the
Court En Bane that was not discussed and resolved by the
Court in Division in the assailed Decision which was
effectively affirmed in the similarly assailed Resolution. This
finding is provoked by the fact that petitioner, who initiated
the present case, did not even bother to file the required
memorandum giving birth to an impression that he had
nothing more to invoke.

25 Resolution dated February 5, 2018; En Bane docket, pp. 87-88.

DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 8 of 13

In any event and if only to put petitioner's mind to rest,

the Court En Bane shall discuss the highlight of the assailed
Decision.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Court in

Division's ruling ordering the deletion of the imposed
surcharges and interests arising from the deficiency DST
assessment and the consequent cancelation of the FLD and
Assessment Notice No. ELTAD-II-DS-09-0019, was not
solely based on respondent's reliance in good faith on the
numerous BIR Rulings that intercompany advances covered
by board resolution, inter-office memo, instructional letter
and/or cash and journal vouchers or similar documents are
not subject to DST.

In the assailed Decision of May 19, 2017, the Court in

Division emphasized that prior to the 2011 Fitinvest case,
there were conflicting BIR Rulings on the imposition of DST
on intercompany advances covered by board resolution,
office memo, instructional letter and/or cash and journal
vouchers.

In BIR Ruling No. 116-98 dated July 30, 1998, the BIR
held that "inter-office memo evidencing /endings/borrowings
which is neither a form of promissory note nor a certificate
of indebtedness issued by the corporation-affiliate," is not
subject to DST. For the BIR, inter-office memo is "being
prepared for accounting purposes only in order to avoid the
co-mingling of funds of the corporate affiliates."

However, in BIR Ruling No. 108-99 dated July 15, 1999,

the BIR had a change of heart and modified its earlier ruling
holding that inter-office memo covering the advances
granted by a corporation affiliate company is in the nature of
a promissory note subject to DST.

About six (6) months thereafter, the BIR again had a

change of heart and reverted back to its earlier position. In
BIR Ruling No. DA-666-A-99 dated December 3, 1999, the BIR
ruled that since inter-company advances are not covered by
loan agreements, promissory notes, debit and credit memos
nor by inter-company loan memos and since the only
documents relating to the inter-company advances are the /
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 9 of 13

board resolutions of the lenders and the cash vouchers

issued by the lenders which are acknowledged by the
borrowers, the said inter-company advances are not
subject to DST. Significantly, this ruling was echoed in BIR
Ruling Nos. DA-696-06 dated December 11, 2006, DA-701-
07 dated December 28, 2007, DA-0 16-08 dated January 17,
2008, and DA-(C-035) 127-08 dated August 8, 2008.

Indeed, with the numerous rulings issued by the BIR,

respondent had reason enough to sustain a belief that its
intercompany advances were not subject to DST. With the
constant change in the BIR Ruling, no clear and definite
stance was established on the matter prior to the 2011
Filinvest case upon which respondent could lean on.

While it may be true that the BIR Rulings were not

specifically addressed to respondent, there were other
rulings of the same tenor26 issued by this Court as well as
the Court of Appeals (CA) to the effect that board
resolutions, inter-office memoranda, letters of instructions,
journal or cash vouchers evidencing lending/borrowings are
not subject to DST. The Court En Bane agrees with the
Court in Division when it held, thus:

xxx. Applying the foregoing, the Court

is convinced that petitioner acted in good
faith when it believed that intercompany
advances are not subject to DST prior to
the 2011 Filinvest case. After all, it was
based on numerous rulings of the BIR
that intercompany advances are not
subject to DST. Moreover, the CA and
CTA, the specialized body handling tax
cases, also had similar rulings. Hence,
petitioner cannot be faulted if it relied
in good faith on these rulings. (Citations
omitted; emphasis supplied)

It must also be pointed out that respondent is not

disputing the application of the Filinvest ruling to its case but

26APC Group, Inc. vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 6155, March 11, 2002, CIR vs. APC Group, Inc., CA-
G.R. SP No. 69869 dated November 29, 2002 and Filinvest Development Corporation and
Filinvest Alabang, Inc. vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 6182, September 10, 2002, CIR vs. Filinvest /
Development Corporation and Filinvest Alabang, Inc., CA-G.R. No. SP No. 74510, January 26, .,./
2005.
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 10 of 13

rather seeks the cancellation of the surcharge and interests

imposed against it explaining that due to good faith and
honest belief that intercompany advances covered by board
resolution, inter-office memo, instructional letter and/or
cash and journal vouchers or similar documents during the
relevant period were not subject to DST, it was unable to
pay its tax obligation during the prescribed period.

No less than the Supreme Court declared that good

faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax
on the basis of previous interpretations of government
agencies tasked to implement the tax law are
sufficient justification to delete the imposition of
surcharges and interest. 27

Premium must also be given to the fact that petitioner

acted beyond the scope of his authority when he issued the
subject deficiency DST assessment. The record reveals that
the LOA issued by petitioner authorized the audit or
examination of respondent's books of accounts and other
accounting records for TY 2009 only. However, perusal of
the breakdown of the deficiency DST assessment shows that
TYs 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2008 were included. Amazingly,
no DST was even assessed for 2009 - the year covered by
the LOA. For ready reference, below is the breakdown of
the basic deficiency DST assessment lifted from Annex A of
the Details of Discrepancies of the FLD:

Particular Total DST Rate DST Due

Advances to Affiliates
Total- 2008 5,391,387,600.00 0.005 26,956,938.00

Advances from Affiliates

Total- 2000 251,033 996.00 0.005 1,255,170.00
Total- 2006 23 117 262 225.00 0.005 115,586,312.00
Total- 2007 1,083,854.00 0.005 5,420.00
Total- 2008 5,391,387 600.00 0.005 26 956,938.00
---
Total- 2009 (2,189,123,581.00)
Total 26 571 644 094.00

Payables - Others
Total- 2008 136 000 000.00 0.005 680,000.00

27Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. 166786,
September 11, 2006; Antam Pawnshop Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No.167962, September 19, 2008; and Tambunting Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Commissioner of /
Internal Revenue, G. R. No. 179085, January 21, 2010. ../
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 11 of 13

Notes Payable
Total- 2008 20,936,804.00 0.005 104 685.00
171,545,463.00

Thus, even assuming that respondent could not rely in

good faith on the rulings issued by the BIR, CA, and this
Court, still, the subject deficiency DST assessment is null
and void justifying the cancellation of the same.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Sony

Philippines, Inc.,2 8 the Supreme Court pertinently ruled that:

"xxx there must be a grant of

authority before any revenue officer can
conduct an examination or assessment.
Equally important is that the revenue
officer so authorized must not go
beyond the authority given. In the
absence of such an authority, the
assessment or examination is a nullity.

As earlier stated, LOA 19734 covered

'the period 1997 and unverified prior years.'
For said reason, the CIR acting through
its revenue officers went beyond the
scope of their authority because the
deficiency VAT assessment they
arrived at was based on records from
January to March 1998 or using the
fiscal year which ended in March 31,
1998. As pointed out by the CTA-First
Division in its April 28, 2005 Resolution, the
CIR knew which period should be covered
by the investigation. Thus, if the CIR
wanted or intended the investigation to
include the year 1998, it should have
done so by including it in the LOA or
issuing another LOA."

In fine, the revenue officers who conducted the tax

examination went beyond the scope of their authority as the
deficiency DST assessment was arrived based on record
from TYs 2000 to 2008, which were not covered by the
issued LOA. On this point alone, the subject deficiency DST

2
B G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 2010.
 DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 12 of 13

assessment for 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2008 should be

disallowed since the LOA issued by petitioner covered only
the period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review filed by

petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue on August 24,
2017 is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
assailed Decision and Resolution dated May 19, 2017 and
July 21, 2017, respectively, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

We Concur:

(With Concurri Opinion)

ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO
Presiding Justice

.
~·" c. ~~JJ.
JlfANITO c .. CASTANEDA';' JR.
Associate Justice
ER~P.UY
Associate Justice

~ N. l\1\"·A~ . C~ ~. ~ /.S· '-,

CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA MA. BELEN RINGPIS-LIBAN
Associate Justice Associate Justice

t'~'7p~
CATHERINE T. MANAHAN
Associate Justice
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1697
Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,

it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

Presiding Justice
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Court of Tax Appeals
QUEZON CITY

ENBANC

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1697

REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9072)
Petitioner,
Present:

DEL ROSARIO , PJ,

CASTANEDA, JR.,
-versus- UY,
FASON-VICTORINO ,
MINDARO-GRULLA,
RINGPIS-LIBAN , and
MANAHAN , JJ.

TRUSTMARK HOLDINGS Promulgated:

CORPORATION,
Respondent. JAN 3 1 2019
~ ~- ·oT;.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(/fr - - / _~ - - 7 -~
CONCURRING OPINION

DEL ROSARIO, P.J.:

I concur with the ponencia in denying the Petition for Review

filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).

In addition to the ponencia's findings , I submit that the Final

Assessment Notice (FAN) dated October 28 , 2014 is void for failure to
demand payment of the deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax
(DST) and interest within a specific period .

While the Formal Letter of Demand (FLO) dated October 28 ,

2014 (which made reference to the FAN dated October 28 , 2014)
incorporates the following statement:

"Xxx, you are requested to pay your aforesaid deficiency

documentary stamp tax liability through the duly authorized agent
bank in which you are enrolled within the time shown in the
enclosed assessment notice ."O'J
Concurring Opinion
CTA EB No. 1697 (CTA Case No. 9072)
Page 2 of 3

the space for the due date in the FAN dated October 28, 2014
was conspicuously left blank.

Since there was no assessment notice which properly indicated

the due date when the deficiency taxes must be paid, no proper
demand thereof within a specific period was made.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pascor Realty and

Development Corporation 1 and Commissioner of Internal Revenue
vs. Fitness By Design, 2 the Supreme Court emphasized that a FAN
without a definite due date for payment is not valid because it negates
the demand for payment. Pertinent parts of the Supreme Court's ruling
in Fitness By Design are quoted hereunder:

"The disputed Final Assessment Notice is not a valid

assessment.

XXX XXX XXX

Second, there are no due dates in the Final Assessment

Notice. This negates petitioner's demand for payment.
Petitioner's contention that April 15, 2004 should be regarded as
the actual due date cannot be accepted. The last paragraph of the
Final Assessment Notice states that the due dates for payment
were supposedly reflected in the attached assessment:

In view thereof, you are requested to pay your

aforesaid deficiency internal revenue tax liabilities
through the duly authorized agent bank in which you
are enrolled within the time shown in the enclosed
assessment notice.

However, based on the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals

First Division, the enclosed assessment pertained to remained
unaccomplished.

Contrary to petitioner's view, April 15, 2004 was the

reckoning date of accrual of penalties and surcharges and not the
due date for payment of tax liabilities. The total amount depended
upon when respondent decides to pay. The notice, therefore, did
not contain a definite and actual demand to pay."

In other words, a FAN must not only indicate the legal and
factual bases of the assessment but must also state a clear and
categorical demand for payment of the computed tax liabilities~

1 G.R. No. 128315, June 29, 1999.

2 G.R. No. 215947, November 9, 2016.
Concurring Opinion
CTA EB No. 1697 (CTA Case No. 9072)
Page 3 of 3

within a specific period. Absent such demand, as in this case, the

FAN is fatally infirm.

All told, I vote to: (i) DENY the Petition for Review filed by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and, (ii) CANCEL the Final
Assessment Notice dated October 28, 2014 assessing respondent for
deficiency DST for the period January-December 2009 for being void.

Presiding Justice